First, yet another great piece by By M K Bhadrakumar in which he outlines the sequence of Kerry gaffes this week in an article entitled “Kerry becomes first war casualty“. I highly recommend it – great read!
Makes me wonder: what is “wrong” with the Asia Times?! How can a corporate newspaper publish such top notch authors like M K Bhadrakumar and Pepe Escobar?! Well, whatever the reason, may they live long and prosper \//_
Then, I did not listen to Obama tonight. He makes me sick. But I read the transcript. And I noticed this part:
I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective, deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad’s capabilities.
Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out Assad. Now, some members of Congress have said there’s no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver.
Interesting statement. Besides the dumb macho “we don’t do pinpricks” (which of course they have done many many times), I would summarize his words as follows: more then a single volley of missiles (as the “pinprick” attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory), less than Libya or Kosovo. Something like a “sissy option on steroids”. Typical Obama, no? But the key thing is here: not a “regime change” attack, not a “civil war defining” attack, not even a “bailing out the insurgency attack”. That, in turn, means that the US does not have the stomach to take on Hezbollah and Iran.
Good. Very good!
The Saker
Could we have another less ‘sexist’, less ‘macho’ term than “sissy”, do you think? For the female readers that contribute to your page view stats, the term smacks of ‘boys with toys (sigh)’. For me, term detracts from the mostly excellent content.
Could we have another less ‘sexist’, less ‘macho’ term than “sissy”, do you think? For the female readers that contribute to your page view stats, the term smacks of ‘boys with toys (sigh)’. For me, term detracts from the mostly excellent content.
@Carrie:Could we have another less ‘sexist’, less ‘macho’ term than “sissy”, do you think?
No, we may most definitely not. But before taking offense at this, please hear me out, ok? This is an important enough issue to deserve a separate discussion in a full post and not just a quick reply in the comments section. So give me a day or two and, depending on my schedule and what happens (or not) around Syria I will give you a full reply, ok? If after that you want to decide that I am a male chauvinist pig – fine, but please hear me out before coming to that conclusion!
Kind regards,
The Saker
the term “sissy” has been used by several writers in the last week…
Saker is not the first, nor I expect will he be the last to use the term
I think you have a problem understanding this situation. Most Americans do not care for attacking foreign countries and killing people that have done nothing to us. Sorry you did not get the aggression you seem to desire.
@Anonymous:. Most Americans do not care for attacking foreign countries and killing people that have done nothing to us.
True. But then they get brainwashed into believing that they are “serving their country” or “fighting for freedom” and they end up doing just that: fighting all over the planet. And if you doubt that, a quick look here should be enough to burst your bubble:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
I would also not that you write that at a time when the USA if fighting several wars against countries which did nothing to the US. Makes me wonder if you are serious or if you actually believe your own words.
Sorry you did not get the aggression you seem to desire.
I desire exactly ZERO aggression. However, I do notice that the USA likes to pick on weak or defenseless targets and has no stomach to fight a country which could defend itself. So the “home of the brave” part is more propaganda than reality. And then there are cases like Grenada were even a few troops of the Cuban Corps of Engineers armed with AK-74s managed to pretty much defeat the entire US special operations community which had to call in the 82 Airborne to save the day.
So, please, don’t give me that crap about “it’s not that we are cowards, no, we are just kind and peace loving” because the historical record points to the polar opposite.
Cheers,
The Saker